Chattel or part of the land: degree and object of annexation (Elitestone v Morris)

Whether an object brought onto land has become part of it depends mainly on the degree of annexation and the object (purpose) of annexation, assessed objectively. In Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] UKHL 15 a bungalow resting by its own weight on concrete pillars was held to be part of the land. Lord Lloyd said that a house constructed so that it cannot be removed at all, save by destruction, cannot have been intended to remain a chattel. The House also held that the subjective intention of the parties is relevant only so far as it can be derived from the degree and object of annexation. Gethin's cabin was built on site as a dwelling, has stood for decades, and could be removed only by demolition. It is therefore part of the land and passes to Laila with the freehold, whatever Gethin now believes.

Why A is wrong: Absence of physical attachment is not decisive; in Elitestone a building resting by its own weight became part of the land.

Why B is wrong: Subjective intention is irrelevant except as shown by the degree and object of annexation.

Why C is wrong: Anything forming part of the land passes with it unless excluded; it need not be listed in the contract.

Why E is wrong: Service connections are not required; the bungalow in Elitestone was treated as not physically attached yet still formed part of the land.